| Printed Page 1570, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1590, Feb. 10 |

I could even, you know, suggest if you -- when I do time -- I mean when I do the percentages, I'm usually talking about how much of my time is involved in this sort of thing rather than the numbers or anything like that. I'd say maybe five, again, ten percent or something like that would have to go on appeal and I don't apologize about the appeal because on occasion, they have been to some effect.

In -- not that the Chief Justice or the Justice needs any protection here, but I can remember two occasions on cases I appealed reversed a former chief justice, two different occasions where they sat as trial judges at the time. So I mean I think the Supreme Court is very, you know, aware of what is the appropriate thing, so they're not controlled by just who the judge may be.
Q. The case loads for trial courts are heavy and they continue to increase, so there is a great need to operate efficiently. How would you make your court operate efficiently and at the same time preserve the litigant's rights to a full and fair hearing?
A. Well, as I say, I guess my strongest suit, if anything, is experience. Again, it's kind of like Walter Brennan said on The Real McCoys, "It's not brag, it's a fact." I participated in the most trials in one week in Oconee County. It's several -- I mean, gosh, 20 years ago maybe because I was still with the Attorney General. In fact, it was the summer before I came to Oconee County.

I had been with the Attorney General's Office. We tried nine cases to jury verdicts in four and a half days and then settled another five or six, but I mean the fact is that you can move cases. The way you do it in my experience, though, is using the attorneys.

The attorneys know what their cases are about when they're ready for trial and that sort of thing. I think if we give more consideration to the attorneys and the litigants in preparing cases for trial, that they -- you can move them quicker. I think one of the most difficult things to do is when you start getting into an arbitrary system that just dictates that you do this, that and the other.

And I say efficiently because you asked me about appeals. One of the things that brings about appeal is a hastily tried case, one where you're not prepared and where you're sometimes pressed beyond what might be reasonable. Also I think that attorneys -- one of the things that is arbitration and things of that nature that we need to encourage more cooperation, if you would, between the Bar.

I think the Bar is ready to do this, particularly the trial part, the ones that have to find themselves in a courtroom. It's kind of like a forward pass, you know. I think it was Knute Rockne that said three things can happen with a forward pass, two of them were bad. Well, it's pretty much like trying a case. Three things can happen in the trial of a case. Only one of them is rule for you, otherwise, you end up with a mistrial or a verdict against you, so I think trial lawyers realize that. That's what we've got to do.
Q. The Code of Judicial Conduct is pretty broad on what a judge can accept as social hospitality. What's your bright line test about that?
A. I have very limited taste for what -- I really don't bother too much with anything really. I think the better rule is if there is any question at all, just, you know, decline and that's my bright line really.

I notice that with the Bar evaluation I was very impressed with it because I'm a sitting member of the General Assembly and I don't play golf and yet it was they found me qualified.

So I mean I really don't have a whole lot that I do that's accessible to, you know, influence or anything like that, so my bright line is just don't do it.
Q. That extends to even a lunch with an attorney who might be appearing before you during that week?
A. Well, Mr. Elliott, as you know, I've been here during the ethics thing and all and I -- we've gotten very used to that. I mean we buy our own cups of coffee, own lunches. It's -- you know, it's almost gone to the extreme that -- but, no, I have no problem just with a very bright line that says you just don't do it.

You'll notice in the Bar thing, and as I said, I really didn't want to get into it, but since it's been brought up. If I may, I have eight little packages here dealing with the Bar report. If I could introduce it or whatever. I'll wait to see what happened with it, but I think it's probably good for the Bar.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator, if you could just wait just a moment.
A. Certainly.
THE CHAIRMAN: We'll be glad to incorporate this into the record and I'll pass out a copy to each of the Committee members.
A. As you'll notice this came out, it's dated the 7th. It actually was mailed on the 7th. As I say, I really -- I think it's probably important to the process that we go through in South Carolina on evaluating judges.

If you'll notice that the comment that gives me the most concern is the one that you addressed that I think is, says something to the effect that some have expressed concern, now they don't identify the some. A part of the package, of course, was letters written by attorneys who have tried cases with me and against me before the Bar did theirs.

Not only did they not identify the somes, so we don't know who they came from. We don't know if it was Chicken Little or maybe the gentleman that Diogenes was looking for all of those years, so we don't know how to judge the veracity of what the somes concern was.

More importantly, and that's what this little handout is, if you'll look the top of it is the little letter -- is the letter that was addressed to me on September the 7th saying that the Judicial Qualifications Committee met today, which I trust is the 7th, and made their deliberation and findings. And the second page are those findings, that they were talking about. The third should be either an Expressed Mail copy showing that it was not to be delivered until a weekday which means if it was mailed on Friday,

Now the most important thing is, and I don't know if ya'll know this, but my daughter was married on Saturday, January the 8th. And so rather than being in my office, if you'll look at the page, there's a telephone message there.

Rather than being in my office on January the 8th at 9:27 a.m., I was in Columbia, South Carolina getting ready to have my daughter married at noon, yet my office received a call. And this is an answering service that we have that's in effect on the weekend. And it's to Miley and Macaulay Office, which is M and M, Senator Macaulay, 1/8/94 at 9:27 a.m., a gentleman from the Bar Association is serving on it -- who leaves this message is serving on the Bar Judicial Committee and needs to talk to Senator Macaulay, ASAP, note hotel where he can be reached and put the number.

He talked to my wife at 9:40 a.m., but unfortunately, my son and I were getting the car prepared. We were getting the car prepared and getting it in front of the church, so nobody else could park there, so we weren't available at 9:40 a.m.

On the back is a further note that upon contact with Mrs. Macaulay, I called Mr. -- the gentleman back to advise of the fact that Mr. Macaulay's daughter's wedding on this day. He said he understood and that he would like to discuss getting an appointment with the Senator for Sunday, if possible, and he contacted Mrs. Macaulay back again.

Now, I did get the message and on Sunday, I was preparing for a case which was first up in Pickens County on Monday, so I returned the call. Now this was Sunday, January the 9th, two days after the report was made and mailed.

At that point, I had my first contact with the South Carolina Bar Association Screening Committee who is so concerned about willingness to listen to both sides.

Now, I'm glad they have that concern because obviously I have that concern because if you'll notice from the little fax sheet that is a part of this handout, at the front, my whole life has been based on practicing law where I have to listen to both sides. And as I point out there, I practice law in criminal court as a prosecuting attorney as well as a defense attorney. I practice in the civil court, Common Pleas, both as a plaintiff's attorney and as a defense attorney and I've had to listen to both sides. So I would be interested in knowing since the Bar Association did not see fit to contact me before they made their deliberations and recommendations is what they rely on.

But then I also thought about it, if it's anything, it's like a Walt Disney movie. You know, "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight," with Don Knotts and the others. Well, that's what this is. They couldn't even shoot straight with their own people to tell them that they've already made the recommendation and rating before he talked to me. And we had a nice conversation.

He asked me why I wanted to be a judge, what I thought about sentences and all of that and he said the recommendation would be coming out Monday. Well, little did I realize that it was going to be coming out as we -- it already was in the mail as we talked.

My point -- and I say this, I don't care who the some were. I find it more important in practicing law that I know the source of the information that I receive. As I say, a part of this package are letters that had been submitted by attorneys from Oconee County, attorneys that have practiced against me as well as with me. And I -- and they were -- I think without exception, were all dated prior to the Bar's Recommendation.

An interesting thing, too, ya'll I think asked for five references. I think the Bar asked for another five or six. Well, the ones that I have had contact with, because this has kind of upset some people back home, but the ones I've had contact with whose names were submitted for references, they have not been contacted by the Bar.

And, in fact, two of them received letters from the Chair of the Judicial Qualifications Committee saying they would be contacted. They weren't contacted.

I make these observations solely for one purpose, that you be very careful not only in my case and Mr. Ross' case, but in all screenings because if this is the type of process that's being followed and printed in the paper without any sort of opportunity to respond, we have a very -- not dangerous, but a very sensitive situation here.

To be very frank with you, next to my family, my profession is about as important as anything to me --
Q. Senator --
A. -- and it has to be done in the open and with fairness, not with some secret --
Q. Senator, I think the Committee and I hesitate to speak for them, but the Committee has been very careful about that and not placing too much

As I said, I've been practicing 23 years and fortunately it's not the same way as it used to be, but I can remember going into court on Monday morning and having a judge tell me, "Well, I already know about your case." Obviously, that case was tried on the golf course the weekend before or the supper the night before.

I had -- that is not the way you operate a judicial system, a system of justice. It is the -- don't make the decisions in the board room, in the club room. Make them in the open courtroom where both sides can be heard and I think if anything -- if these -- the ones that made this decision, if they're suggesting anything, it's not that they want both sides heard. They want their side heard in that old system and as far as I'm concerned that's not the system that we use if I am fortunate enough to --
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Elliott.
Q. One final question, have you sought directly or indirectly the pledge of any legislator for you as a circuit judge?
A. I have not sought directly or indirectly, but I tell you it's awfully hard when somebody who knows you're interested in it without, you know, somebody making a comment. I have tried very hard not to, what is it, in any way to respond effectively. I mean by effectively in a sense was to respond in any way to the casual comment, but I have -- notice has been made of the fact that I'm interested in the judgeship.

I might say that that notice has probably been for sometime because -- well, when I said I would have no opening comment, I saw my two colleagues right before Senator Russell came in, breathe a sigh of relief because normally I am as you found out since you asked the question rather expansive or can be.
SENATOR MOORE: We were shocked, Mr. Chairman.

The second thing is the truth in sentencing. We have gotten to the point now that we really don't know what and I will say back in the times when I was doing more criminal practice and there were pleas and things like that, if somebody would come up to me and solicit or offer a plea, more than likely, I wouldn't know what the real time served was and I would go out and find a trustee, you know, in the court house and run the scenario about it and he could tell me probably within a few weeks, you know, the actual time served and all that.

So I think really what we need to do is to provide a system where we know what they're being sentenced to because it sounds awfully good to sentence a fellow to 100 years, knowing full well that the actual time served will probably be six or seven. I think we owe it to the public that we give them the truth in sentencing and the certainty that they will be sentenced if they're found guilty.
Q. Should some of these sentencing guidelines be changed?

And as I say, the two that I talked to -- you know, three that I've talked to that were submitted as references have not been contacted and two of them had received letters from the Chair of the committee that they would be contacted and never were.
Q. And --
A. So I don't know where -- I don't know who the some are.
Q. And subsequent to your receiving their findings, did that open process of theirs provide you with any notification that some of this stuff occurred after the fact? Did they ever --
A. No. No, sir. The only -- if I hadn't had an answering service and I had been there Saturday morning, I would -- I probably wouldn't have any way to demonstrate exactly what did happen. No, to answer your question, I have no idea, you know, what --
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
A. I want to tell you this, that if I am fortunate enough to, you know, be able to sit over a court of law that court of law will be handled in a much different way. It will be open to not all -- not just two sides, but all sides to include those who have concern.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator Macaulay. Any further questions?
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: Just one statement.

I mean that is just probably to a fault he has been willing to listen to all sides. That's why we have filibusters and long talks. He's wanting us to hear the other side and wanting to hear others who speak and very seriously, Senator from Oconee, it is amazing to me that that can even be raised in whatever endeavor you're involved in. That is amazing to me.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator, and the Chair would take notice that the Sir Thomas More that you referenced earlier is not Sir Thomas Moore of Aiken County. They may --
SENATOR MOORE: The only difference is he spells his name differently than I do.
A. One O and an E. That's right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. The next applicant is Lowell William Ross. Representative Ross, if you'd come forward please and have -- raise your right hand please, sir.
LOWELL WILLIAM ROSS, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN: Have you had a chance to review the Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
MR. ROSS: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is it correct?
MR. ROSS: As far as I know.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any clarifications need to be --
MR. ROSS: No, except for ones that I sent in.

1. Lowell William Ross
Home Address: Business Address:
204 Mockingbird Street 811 123 By Pass
Seneca, SC 29678 P. O. Box 99
Seneca, SC 29679-0099

2. He was born in Westminster, South Carolina on March 13, 1932. He is presently 61 years old.

4. He was previously divorced; August, 1968; Ann Derrick Ross; Richland County Court; Desertion. He was married to Carolyn Tuten on December 31, 1968. He has four children: Lowell W., Jr., age 36 (attorney admitted in Illinois, pending application to S. C. Bar examination); Nancy Kay, age 34 (counselor, Chesterfield School System); Sharon Lynn, age 28 (certified to teach math, presently serving as substitute teacher in the Oconee School District and teaching home-bound students); and David Michael, age 25 (attorney, law clerk to the Honorable Dean Hall).

5. Military Service: Active Duty; June, 1954 - January, 1958; United States Air Force; First Lieutenant; Serial Number A03019390; Honorable Discharge

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, September, 1949 - February, 1954, B.S. Degree; Clemson University, January, 1958 - June, 1958 (no degree); the University of South Carolina, September, 1958 - February, 1961, LLB Degree. He attended Clemson University for one semester after being discharged from the Air Force but before attending law school. He thought a semester spent in a college environment prior to attending law school would be helpful. He did not receive a degree.

| Printed Page 1570, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1590, Feb. 10 |